Page 5. The assertion by the Continuator of Florence of Worcester that Stephen kept his coronation court "cum totius AngliÆ primoribus" has an important bearing on the assertion by Florence that Harold was elected to the throne "a totius AngliÆ primatibus." For this latter phrase is the sheet-anchor upon which Mr. Freeman relies for the fact of Harold's valid election, and which he is avowedly compelled to strain to the uttermost:—

"He was chosen, not by some small or packed assembly, but by the chief men of the land. And he was chosen, not by this or that shire or earldom, but by the chief men of the whole land.... All this is implied in the weighty and carefully chosen words of Florence" (Norman Conquest (1869), iii. 597).

So also he confidently insists that—

"There can be no doubt that the Witan of Northumberland, no less than the Witan of the rest of England, had concurred in the election of Harold. The expressions of our best authorities declare that the chief men of all England concurred in the choice" (ibid., p. 57).

The only authority given for this assertion is the above statement by Florence that "Harold was 'a totius AngliÆ primatibus ad regale culmen electus.'"

Now, the known authorities from which Florence worked (the Abingdon and Worcester chronicles) "are," Mr. Freeman admits, "silent about the election." The fact, therefore, rests on the ipse dixit of Florence (for the words of the Peterborough chronicler are quite general, and, moreover, he is admittedly a partisan), who was, strictly speaking, not a contemporary authority.

Stephen's election, as Mr. Freeman observes, "can hardly fail to call to our minds" that of Harold, and in the case of Stephen's accession we have what he himself terms the "valuable contemporary" evidence of the Continuator of Florence." This evidence, which is better, because more contemporary, than that of Florence as to 1066, is equally precise (vide supra), and might, in the absence of rebutting testimony, be appealed to as confidently as Mr. Freeman appeals to that of Florence. But in this case it is proved, by rebutting evidence, to be worthless, just as it is at Maud's "reception" in 1141 (see p. 64).

Therefore, we see how dangerous it is to accept such statements, when unsupported, as exact in every detail, and are led to regard the words of Florence as a mere conventional phrase, rather than to hold, as Mr. Freeman insists, that in "no passage in any writer of any age ... does every word deserve to be more attentively weighed."

The caution with which such evidence should be used is one of the chief lessons this work is intended to enforce (see p. 267).

Page 8. There is much confusion as to the charters of liberties issued by Stephen. The "second" charter, as explained in the text, was issued at Oxford in the spring of 1136; the other, commonly termed the "coronation" charter, is found only, it would seem, in the Cottonian MS. Claud. D. II., and has no note of date. Mr. Hubert Hall has been good enough to inform me that the authority of this MS. is first-rate; and, as to the date at which the charter was issued, that of the coronation, there is no doubt, was the most probable. It is important to observe that the oath stated by William of Malmesbury to have been taken by Stephen at his first arrival (and afterwards committed to writing at Oxford) was "de libertate reddenda ecclesiÆ et conservanda." William's remark that this oath, "postea scripto inditum, loco suo non prÆtermittam," proves that he must have looked on the Oxford charter as the record of this oath in writing; for that is the only charter which he gives in his work. This fits in with the fact that the charter assigned to the coronation contains no mention of the Church and her liberties, while the "second" (Oxford) charter is full of them. It would appear, then, that the Oxford charter combined the original oath to the Church with the "coronation" charter to the people at large, at the same time expanding them both in fuller detail. Page 37. (Cf. p. 354.) It would, perhaps, have been rash to introduce into the text the conjecture that in the first Geoffrey de Mandeville we have the actual "Gosfregth Portirefan" to whom the Conqueror's charter to the citizens of London was addressed, although the story in the De Inventione, the known connection of the Mandevilles with the shrievalty, and the striking resemblance of the two names (even closer than in "Esegar" and "Ansgar"), all point to the same conclusion.

The association of the custody of the Tower with the shrievalty of London and Middlesex is a point of considerable interest, because in other cases—such as those of Worcestershire, Gloucestershire, Wilts, and Devon—we find the custody of the fortress in the county town and the shrievalty of the shire hereditarily vested in the same hands.

Page 74. The phrase "in regni dominam electa" must, as explained in the text, not be pressed too far, as it may be loosely used. But the parallel is too curious to be passed over.

Page 92. The grant of "excidamenta" confers on Geoffrey the escheatorship of Essex to the exclusion of any Crown officer.

Page 93. The closing clauses of this charter suggest that Geoffrey was even then guarding himself against the consequences of future treason.

Page 103. The grants of knight-service to Geoffrey should be carefully compared with those, by HenryI., to William de Albini "Pincerna," as recorded in the carta of his fief (Liber Rubeus, ed. Hall, p. 397), and are also illustrated by the charter to Aubrey, p. 189.

Page 112. "Archiepiscopo Cant." is, of course, a transcriber's wrong extension for "Arch[idiacono] Cant."

Page 116. The phrase "senatoribus inclitis, civibus honoratis, et omnibus commune London" may be compared with the "cent partz et a laut poble et comunautat de Baione" on p. 248.

Page 182. The expression "una baronia" should be noted as a very early instance of its use.

Page 189. The name of Abbot Ording dates this charter as between 1148 and 1156 (Memorials of St. Edmundsbury, I. xxxiv.).

Page 190. "Mauricius dapifer" was Maurice de Windsor, steward of the Abbey. For him and for the Cockfield family, see the Camden Society's edition of Jocelyn de Brakelonde.

"Alanus filius Frodonis" was probably the heir of Frodo, brother to Abbot Baldwin of St. Edmund's (see Domesday).

Page 205. Compare William of Malmesbury's criticism on Stephen's conduct in attacking Lincoln (1140) without due notice: "Iniquum id visum multis," etc.

Page 235. The transcriber is responsible, of course, for the extension of the king's style.

Page 242. It is only fair to add that the peculiar strength of the words of inheritance might be held to support the view that hereditary earldoms were a novelty.

Page 267. The charters of HenryII. to certain earls in no way affect my real contention, namely, that no "fiscal" earls were, as is alleged, deprived by him of their earldoms.

Page 275. On the gradual resumption of Crown Lands, see my Ancient Charters, page 47.

Page 286. "Navium applicationibus" (cf. Domesday, 32: "De exitu aquÆ ubi naves applicabant") is a phrase occurring elsewhere as "appulatione navium." It there equates "theloneum," and was doubtless a payment for landing-dues. So, "de teloneo dando ad Bilingesgate" is found in the Instituta LondoniÆ of Æthelred.

Page 312, note 1. Compare the charge against Harold (in the French life of the Confessor) that he "deners cum usurer amasse."

Page 314. The occurrence of "salinis" among the general words in this charter is clearly due to the rights of the Beauchamps in Droitwich and its salt-pans.

Page 371. The amount of the firma seems to be determined by an entry in the Pipe-Roll of 15 Hen.II. (page 169), which makes it £500 "blanch," plus a varying sum of about £20 "numero."

Page 372. Henry's jealousy of the Londoners might also be due, in part, to their steadfast support of Stephen and opposition to his mother. His restriction of clauses (1) and (10) to lands within the walls is illustrated by a citizen having to pay, in 1169 (Rot. Pip. 15 Hen.II., p. 173), "ut placitet contra W. de R. in civitate Lund' de terra de Eggeswera" (Edgware), as a special favour.